PURPOSE: To explore the effects of computed tomography (CT) slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm on quantification of image features to characterize tumors using a chest phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two phantom lesions of known sizes (10 and 20 mm), shapes (spherical, elliptical, lobulated, and spiculated), and densities [-630, -10, and +100 Hounsfield Unit (HU)] were inserted into an anthropomorphic thorax phantom and scanned three times with relocations. The raw data were reconstructed using six imaging settings, i.e., a combination of three slice thicknesses of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 mm and two reconstruction kernels of lung and standard. Lesions were segmented and 14 image features representing lesion size, shape, and texture were calculated. Differences in the measured image features due to slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm were compared using linear regression method by adjusting three confounding variables (size, density, and shape). RESULTS: All 14 features were significantly different between 1.25 and 5 mm slice images. The 1.25 and 2.5 mm slice thicknesses were better than 5 mm for volume, density mean, density SD gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) energy and homogeneity. As for the reconstruction algorithm, there was no significant difference in uni-dimension, volume, shape index 9, and compactness. Lung reconstruction was better for density mean, whereas standard reconstruction was better for density SD. CONCLUSIONS: CT slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm can significantly affect the quantification of image features. Thinner (1.25 and 2.5 mm) and thicker (5 mm) slice images should not be used interchangeably. Sharper and smoother reconstructions significantly affect the density-based features.
PURPOSE: To explore the effects of computed tomography (CT) slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm on quantification of image features to characterize tumors using a chest phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two phantom lesions of known sizes (10 and 20 mm), shapes (spherical, elliptical, lobulated, and spiculated), and densities [-630, -10, and +100 Hounsfield Unit (HU)] were inserted into an anthropomorphic thorax phantom and scanned three times with relocations. The raw data were reconstructed using six imaging settings, i.e., a combination of three slice thicknesses of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 mm and two reconstruction kernels of lung and standard. Lesions were segmented and 14 image features representing lesion size, shape, and texture were calculated. Differences in the measured image features due to slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm were compared using linear regression method by adjusting three confounding variables (size, density, and shape). RESULTS: All 14 features were significantly different between 1.25 and 5 mm slice images. The 1.25 and 2.5 mm slice thicknesses were better than 5 mm for volume, density mean, density SD gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) energy and homogeneity. As for the reconstruction algorithm, there was no significant difference in uni-dimension, volume, shape index 9, and compactness. Lung reconstruction was better for density mean, whereas standard reconstruction was better for density SD. CONCLUSIONS: CT slice thickness and reconstruction algorithm can significantly affect the quantification of image features. Thinner (1.25 and 2.5 mm) and thicker (5 mm) slice images should not be used interchangeably. Sharper and smoother reconstructions significantly affect the density-based features.
Authors: Thida Win; Kenneth A Miles; Sam M Janes; Balaji Ganeshan; Manu Shastry; Raymondo Endozo; Marie Meagher; Robert I Shortman; Simon Wan; Irfan Kayani; Peter J Ell; Ashley M Groves Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Lawrence H Schwartz; Chaya S Moskowitz; Liang Wang; Michelle S Ginsberg; Cathleen A Cooper; Li Jiang; John P Kalaigian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Helen T Winer-Muram; S Gregory Jennings; Cristopher A Meyer; Yun Liang; Alex M Aisen; Robert D Tarver; Ronald C McGarry Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yongqiang Tan; Pingzhen Guo; Helen Mann; Sarah Elizabeth Marley; Marietta Louise Juanita Scott; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dana Cici Ghiorghiu; Binsheng Zhao Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Fergus Davnall; Connie S P Yip; Gunnar Ljungqvist; Mariyah Selmi; Francesca Ng; Bal Sanghera; Balaji Ganeshan; Kenneth A Miles; Gary J Cook; Vicky Goh Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2012-10-24
Authors: Wei Wu; Larry A Pierce; Yuzheng Zhang; Sudhakar N J Pipavath; Timothy W Randolph; Kristin J Lastwika; Paul D Lampe; A McGarry Houghton; Haining Liu; Liming Xia; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rachel B Ger; Daniel F Craft; Dennis S Mackin; Shouhao Zhou; Rick R Layman; A Kyle Jones; Hesham Elhalawani; Clifton D Fuller; Rebecca M Howell; Heng Li; R Jason Stafford; Laurence E Court Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Muhammad Shafiq-Ul-Hassan; Geoffrey G Zhang; Dylan C Hunt; Kujtim Latifi; Ghanim Ullah; Robert J Gillies; Eduardo G Moros Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-14
Authors: Mehdi Alilou; Niha Beig; Mahdi Orooji; Prabhakar Rajiah; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Sagar Rakshit; Niyoti Reddy; Michael Yang; Frank Jacono; Robert C Gilkeson; Philip Linden; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 4.071